THE DECADES since the end of the Cold War have seen strong and widely shared economic growth, on a global scale. The portion of the world’s population living on $1.25 per day or less fell from 44 percent to 23 percent. Some 200 million Chinese, 90 million Indians and 30 million people each in Indonesia, Egypt and Brazil moved into the global middle class. This progress had many causes, but a major one was the United States’ hard work, under presidents of both major parties, to promote the free flow of goods and capital, within a robust legal framework, among nations.

Except, of course, the past 7+ years, where leftist economic policies have kept most of the 1st World in economic doldrums, where people, at least in the U.S., still think the country hasn’t recovered from the recession, and many still think we’re in one.

These policies benefited the American people, too — though by no means all of them, a fact that has caused understandable concern, especially in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. Seizing on this backlash, and dissenting radically from the long-standing bipartisan consensus, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump speaks of “bringing back” American jobs by repudiating international trade agreements and resorting instead to pressure tactics, such as threatening tariffs against China and other trading partners.

Because attempting to bring back jobs, businesses, increasing wages, and thinking of American citizens first is a Bad Idea in Liberal World. Which is an interesting idea, considering how many of the Democratic Party base are stuck working low wage, often part time, jobs. If they can get one after building up $50,000+ in student loans debt.

The United States needs to ensure that more of its own middle class shares in the benefits of globalization. Mr. Trump’s policies, however, could trigger a trade war, or wars, thus threatening the achievements of the past three decades without helping Americans who need it most.

So, doom.

Anyhow, a few more paragraphs of Doooooooooom, ending with

U.S. leadership of the global trading system has helped stabilize an area of international life that had bred conflict, even war, for centuries. To abdicate in favor of Mr. Trump’s zero-sum mind-set not only would undo the work of generations and lower the United States’ standing among the nations; it also would license other nations to conduct themselves just as selfishly. The disruption to market confidence could breed economic damage in excess of any transitory benefits. His approach would be a historic error, which, as president, he would be free to commit.

Here’s the question not discussed by the WPEB: what if his policies work? In reality, Mr. Trump would not implement policies that would damage American prosperity: he may be rather bombastic and wacky, but, he’s no dummy when it comes to business. He’s certainly smarter than our current president, who has never seen a year with 3%+ GDP growth since Herbert Hoover.

Many of the Trumpites say this election is about the Globalists vs. the Nationalists. Certainly, I have some serious reservations and concerns over pitching nationalism, but, while globalism has certainly afforded Americans cheaper goods, we’re seeing companies and jobs constantly bolt overseas. We see foreign workers brought in to take the jobs of American citizens for lower wages. We see countries dump their products in the US at a cost that is below typical value, damaging American workers and companies. Perhaps it is time to re-evaluate the global business models, and do what we can to put Americans first.

Again, do not take this as an endorsement of Trump. I’m simply amused by the incoherence, apoplexy, and fear-mongering of the WPEB, which never seems to question Hillary Clinton and her ideas in the least.